Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

I reckon it'll be up to Universal, Legendary's new distribution partner, whether they can be convinced to co-finance the sequel.

As LoweGear said del Toro managed to get a sequel made even though the first one wasn't "profitable". Typically it's true that a rough indication of a film's profitability is whether it makes double its budget in B.O. receipts, but that's not always the case because sometimes for certain films the studios would be willing go for the long haul like home media sales, licensing etc. and that depends on whether the film has "sustainable value" i.e. would people buy the DVD/BD. So in Pacific Rim's case, since it's not doing so well box office-wise, they'd want to be sure it will have a strong home media market before deciding on greenlighting a sequel.

I really don't know why $344 million (with the new runs all over the world still not finished) still isn't supposed to be enough for a sequel, considering how for the most part the reception to the film has been mostly positive. Del Toro's last movie to get a sequel, Hellboy, had a total that made only 50% more than its production budget, yet it got a sequel anyway. ($66m budget with $99m lifetime earnings). Pacific Rim is a $190m film with a $344m return currently, well beyond the ratio that Hellboy had.

Well, according to wiki, that is because, Pan's Labyrinth, one of Del Toro's project with 19 million hit 80+ million, and dual Oscars in the process. hellboy I was a flop/barely broke even project, but after Pan, Del Toro used his clot to push for HB II.

I really don't know why $344 million (with the new runs all over the world still not finished) still isn't supposed to be enough for a sequel, considering how for the most part the reception to the film has been mostly positive.

It's not necessarily completely about the revenue of the feature. From what little I've been able to glean, Pacific Rim has had very minimal repeat business, and it's general word of mouth hasn't been nearly as high as the producers/studios hoped. From aggregate review sites, it seems obvious that people like Pacific Rim, they just don't like it enough to tell others to see it, or to go and see it a second time. It became a movie, like many this summer, that there was no point in really thinking about after you exited the theatre.

Whether you wish to condemn Warner Bros. for not advertising it properly (besides more ads and more guest appearances, I do not know how they could have advertised it better since it was always going to be sold as an action movie and all the spots have played that angle quite well), or its simply a failure to communicate why giant robots are supposed to be awesome, Pacific Rim has not garnered any of the attention all involved wished. Personally, I think Pacific Rim has failed solely because it was preaching to the converted (a minority of a minority group to begin with) and it was not a full-on Hollywood blockbuster.

The general idea for a feature of this size is 'star + concept'. This doesn't always work (Elysium most recently), but when it does it can be huge (Hunger Games), especially when you are able to calculate the budget accordingly. For better or worse (I think better), Hollywood is still ruled by its successful actors who can automatically draw in audiences, even for crap features (that doesn't mean the films are always profitable). Pacific Rim, despite being a good and fun film, had no mass market appeal partially because there is no-one in it that can draw a crowd. The random semi-attractive white guy from Queer as Folk and Sons of Anarchy does not command any real audience, nor does the cute Japanese girl from Babel (even if she was nude and got an academy award nomination) or Stringer Bell. That's not to say Channing Tatum, Kristen Stewart, and the Rock should have taken over the main roles, but something could have been done to entice a household name actor into the production.

Additionally, the film was too much about the monsters and robots, something that has never really sold by itself (for better or worse, a large portion of the audience never went to the Transformers movies solely for the action, but rather to see Megan Fox or Shia Lebouf or the humans fighting alongside the aliens). By focusing entirely on the struggle for survival, offering nothing in the way of romance or comedy or patriotism or really any bombastic and overly fun characters, Pacific Rim could only really rest on it's fight sequences (for a general audience), and while they are some of the best of the 2013 Summer, they were never going to be enough to draw in the crowds.

So, we're left with a solid concept but no one, besides the director's name, to sell it. But, the concept itself is also so strange and different (and the fights sporadic at best), that it cannot be sold properly either.

I do believe that Pacific Rim will get a sequel, but the budget will be greatly reduced (probably by 40 million), they'll be much more fight sequences, an actual movie star will be added (as a antagonist?)).

I didn't know the advertisement was this important on a movie success. Anyone knows anymore detail about how their advertisement board failed this?

Marketing is more than just the trailers, billboards and the tv spots. It's all about creating awareness of the product. Earlier this summer, WB blanked America with Superman ads, not just tv spots and trailers, but constant product placement (my favourite was the Superman shaving ads), lots of guest appearances by the many actors, tweeting about the film, viewer specific ads, and multiple other ad-buys that had to cost upwards of 70 million dollars (if not more). And while I wouldn't say it was a complete success, Man o' Steel will probably make 700 million by the time it leaves the theatres. Comparatively, it's been reported that Pacific Rim only spent around 30% of their initial marketing budget just weeks before the film was released, and considering the lack of any real increase of ads during that time, it's hard to claim that WB really went all out in advertising this feature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Hopefully that it at least can break even, and show the potential for the sequel. I means this is the only hope for mecha genre to get big, and we are so close now.

The film will break even (most films do). The question is if it will be the DVD/Blu Ray sales that push the film over, or if it can manage to limp across the boxoffice finish line.

If you really want it do well, then go see the damn thing again . Posters in America, make a concerted effort to push Pacific Rim past the 100 million mark. It's not much, but at least its triple digits...

Additionally, the film was too much about the monsters and robots, something that has never really sold by itself (for better or worse, a large portion of the audience never went to the Transformers movies solely for the action, but rather to see Megan Fox or Shia Lebouf or the humans fighting alongside the aliens). By focusing entirely on the struggle for survival, offering nothing in the way of romance or comedy or patriotism or really any bombastic and overly fun characters, Pacific Rim could only really rest on it's fight sequences (for a general audience), and while they are some of the best of the 2013 Summer, they were never going to be enough to draw in the crowds.

No one watched Transformers for Shia Labeouf or Megan Fox. Shia wasn't a household name till Transformers and Megan was dropped without much notice from the general audience. The real draws of Transformers are and will always be the Robots; Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream etc. The big difference between them and the robots in Pacific Rim is that many Americans grew up watching them and were already emotionally invested in them long before the movie. Pacific Rim didn't have that luxury and it cost them, especially in markets which already had established real robot and Kaiju franchises like America and Japan.

The good showing in countries like China, Taiwan, and Russia is a excellent start for building a legacy in these more open markets. If we look at something like the Resident Evil movie franchise. It is able to stay afloat by relying on similar overseas markets who basically know the series chiefly by the movie franchise. Milla Jovovich isn't the draw because she is a movie star but because she built a legacy as the series progressed and became better known overseas. Now a Resident Evil movie only needs to two essential elements to pull an audience in those markets, Zombies and her character, Alice.

Pacific Rim could do something similar but it will need time, which I don't know if it will get. They don't need a movie star, in fact, that would probably be detrimental and take away from them establishing the elements they've already laid out.

Weird?! Mister you're out of your mind. She's absolutely charming and adorable there, not to mention incredibly humourous. She seems to really love her stuffed toys.

Though I can see how she can be different from your regular Japanese celebrities who are usually more composed (but the eccentricity is the same, really. So you'd think she'd fit in perfectly in talk shows like these, no?), and that just adds to her charm that much more! The fact that she's virtually unknown in Japan shows you there's either something wrong with the Japanese showbiz mentality or that she just hasn't been getting enough much-deserved exposure, which is an outright crime.

No one watched Transformers for Shia Labeouf or Megan Fox. Shia wasn't a household name till Transformers and Megan was dropped without much notice from the general audience. The real draws of Transformers are and will always be the Robots; Optimus Prime, Megatron, Starscream etc. The big difference between them and the robots in Pacific Rim is that many Americans grew up watching them and were already emotionally invested in them long before the movie. Pacific Rim didn't have that luxury and it cost them, especially in markets which already had established real robot and Kaiju franchises like America and Japan.

I never discounted the nostalgia value of the actual Transformers, rather I specifically said a large portion of the audience (not necessarily a majority but a large portion) went for reasons less to do with the robots and more to do with actors or the story, especially the sequels. I also disagree that Shia Labeouf wasn't a named actor, considering he had multiple big name roles is some highly successful films previous to Transformers (Holes, The Greatest Game Ever Played, I, Robot, Constantine, not to mention the huge success of Disturbia which was sold solely on Labeouf's star power).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

The good showing in countries like China, Taiwan, and Russia is a excellent start for building a legacy in these more open markets. If we look at something like the Resident Evil movie franchise. It is able to stay afloat by relying on similar overseas markets who basically know the series chiefly by the movie franchise. Milla Jovovich isn't the draw because she is a movie star but because she built a legacy as the series progressed and became better known overseas. Now a Resident Evil movie only needs to two essential elements to pull an audience in those markets, Zombies and her character, Alice.

The Resident Evil films are made for 30-60 million dollars (and the next film will probably be around 50 million), and while I agree the franchise has grown with time for the reasons you've mentioned, the simple fact that they are so cheap is one of the main reasons they are still being produced (I imagine the studio also likes to reference the fact that Resident Evil is one of the only female driven franchises in existence).

That being said, I do believe Pacific Rim is not finding a market because it was not created with a general market in mind. Resident Evil was able to survive and eventually thrive because is cornered a specific market and was then, for various reasons, able to expand beyond that specific market. Pacific Rim has the geek support all the way, but it lacks any other support, and that is due to the fact that is an ill conceived feature aimed too specifically at one group and there is little to help expand it beyond it's core support (it certainly didn't help that the gender breakdown was 60% male-40% female, especially since female audiences tend to view films more than once and they are generally better for word of mouth).

I don't want to say that Pacific Rim was doomed from its inception (it wasn't), nor do I necessarily believe there is some secret studio cabal out to destroy new sci-fi ip, but Pacific Rim is under-performing for quite obvious reasons that could have been fixed in pre-production.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

Pacific Rim could do something similar but it will need time, which I don't know if it will get. They don't need a movie star, in fact, that would probably be detrimental and take away from them establishing the elements they've already laid out.

I don't see how adding a "star" is intrinsically detrimental (obviously it depends on the star being added), and frankly the only way I see the franchise moving forward is if a box office draw is added to the series or its production budget is cut drastically.

I never discounted the nostalgia value of the actual Transformers, rather I specifically said a large portion of the audience (not necessarily a majority but a large portion) went for reasons less to do with the robots and more to do with actors or the story, especially the sequels. I also disagree that Shia Labeouf wasn't a named actor, considering he had multiple big name roles is some highly successful films previous to Transformers (Holes, The Greatest Game Ever Played, I, Robot, Constantine, not to mention the huge success of Disturbia which was sold solely on Labeouf's star power).

I'm just going to disagree. Sure he wasn't a nobody, I never said he was, but he also wasn't in any a way a star that drew an audience based solely on his own name. You knew him as that guy from that last movie basically. Most of those movies like Constantine and I, Robot already had an established star as a draw. Disturbia did well but I think it is disingenuous to claim that its success solely on Lebeouf or even majorly. I don't fathom how any significant audience would have been turned off to Transformers if Lebeouf was replaced with any semi-relevant actor at the time.

It's hard to quantify such things, which is why I feel people often overplay star power. A lot of people think World War Z did well because of Brad Pitt but this seems comical to me. He certainly didn't hurt and probably brought in a fair share of viewers but the fact that Zombie shows like the Walking Dead are all the rage and the movie turning out to be fairly good had 100x more relevance to its box office success than him, IMHO.

Quote:

Resident Evil films are made for 30-60 million dollars (and the next film will probably be around 50 million), and while I agree the franchise has grown with time for the reasons you've mentioned, the simple fact that they are so cheap is one of the main reasons they are still be produced (I imagine the studio also likes to reference the fact that Resident Evil is one of the only female driven franchises in existence).

The budget is a major problem, undeniably, but unlike most franchises it can generally make good money on the side with toys and other paraphernalia.

Quote:

I don't see how adding a "star" is intrinsically detrimental (obviously it depends on the star being added), and frankly the only way I see the franchise moving forward is if a box office draw is added to the series or its production budget is cut drastically.

The movie was built on cooperation and diversity. No one character was the absolute focus of the story, though it mainly focused on three main characters, but the team effort for essential to the story. This is one reason I believe it played out better in more socialistic countries and less so in the individualistic countries like America. A big star would almost certainly necessitate a change in focus. Also I agree a lower budget would likely be needed so then why take on the add salary of star?

Resident Evil films are made for 30-60 million dollars (and the next film will probably be around 50 million), and while I agree the franchise has grown with time for the reasons you've mentioned, the simple fact that they are so cheap is one of the main reasons they are still be produced (I imagine the studio also likes to reference the fact that Resident Evil is one of the only female driven franchises in existence).

That being said, I do believe Pacific Rim is not finding a market because it was not created with a general market in mind. Resident Evil was able to survive and eventually thrive because is cornered a specific market and was then, for various reasons, able to expand beyond that specific market. Pacific Rim has the geek support all the way, but it lacks any other support, and that is due to the fact that is an ill conceived feature aimed too specifically at one group and there is little to help expand it beyond it's core support (it certainly didn't help that the gender breakdown was 60% male-40% female, especially since female audiences tend to view films more than once and they are generally better for word of mouth).

I don't want to say that Pacific Rim was doomed from its inception (it wasn't), nor do I necessarily believe there is some secret studio cabal out to destroy new sci-fi ip, but Pacific Rim is under-performing for quite obvious reasons that could have been fixed in pre-production.

I don't see how adding a "star" is intrinsically detrimental (obviously it depends on the star being added), and frankly the only way I see the franchise moving forward is if a box office draw is added to the series or its production budget is cut drastically.

I think what people have to bear in mind is that the fact Pacific Rim under-performs, be it the lack of mainstream appeal or star power, does not at all mean it's a poor film. It's a genre film geared towards a very specific group of audience, which isn't necessarily a problem but for the fact that, in hindsight, the budget might have been too big to justify the limited returns that can be squeezed out of that particular audience. So in relative terms Pacific Rim would've been more successful if it was given a budget more "suitable" for its "type" a la Hellboy, Riddick etc.

That brings it to the point james has made about the need for a "star" presence which I agree is necessary to a certain extent. The reality is, there're very few successful sci-fi films which rely on high-concept alone. The trick for the filmmaker is to integrate the actors in a way that doesn't jeopardise the integrity of the storytelling, or dumb down your film so much that it can be relatable to a 6-year-old as well as a 60-year-old, as James Cameron had done with Avatar. Spectacle without an engaging human drama simply doesn't sell. You can argue about how great some of the performances were in Pacific Rim (and I'd be inclined to agree with), but these were so far and in between the prime focus was still robot and monster action which, as it has shown, wasn't quite enough to net the studios $400 million for a profit.

All hope is now on whether it can manage to stay in the game throughout its run. No matter how hopeful we geeks are, the situation is indeed grim when China seems to be the only market it's kicking ass internationally, but that wouldn't mean very much either since only a small percetage of foreign receipts goes directly back to the studios. Home market is where the studios get most of the money hence why it may seem ironic to some people that foreign sales aren't as important as domestic even though a film "earns more" internationally.